With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very
simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem:
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra low order bits of source
destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Step 2: make NATs which directly
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra low order bits of source
destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Don't IP options translate to handle in slow path on various routing
platforms? :)
THat makes leave backbones unchanged
On 03/04/10 23:11 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very
simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem:
+1 years.
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra low order bits of source
destination address. Add handling of
Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from
2008 about the interop show:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27583
The show could setup an IPv6 only network in order to showcase it?
On Apr 3, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected to the
internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the internet would
be minicomputers and mainframes.
It took some visionary and
On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
They are not glowing because applications are simply not moving to IPv6.
Google has two popular applications on IPv6, Netflix is on it way there but
what are other application companies doing about it? A popular application
like e-mail is so far
This sounds like
Step 1: I have a wisdom tooth, it hurts on my right jaw and so I will chew
from my left.
Step 2: Take some pain killers.
Step 3: Damn it hurts I will ignore it and it will eventually heal.
Step 4: Continue to take pain killers and perhaps if I sleep more it will
grow in the
If every significant router on the market supported IPv6 five years ago,
and if cash fell from the sky ...
to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with
ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no
licensing extortion, ...
we don't have that
On 4/3/10 9:12 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Uh, netflix seems fully functional to me on IPv6. What do you think is
missing?
Functional is the easy part and it seems Netflix has executed that well. I
was implying that the v6 traffic rate might not be quite there yet which is
what
If you did some more reading this would all be come clear?
On 4 April 2010 02:38, IPv3.com ipv3@gmail.com wrote:
What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
Well both and neither, both of these are used and much more!
As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on
Sorry for double post:
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very useful?
This sort email address should be on the list rules like that other fellow
who was spamming about top 50 AS's for botnets/spam etc.
--
Regards,
James.
http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/
In article 207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very
useful?
an amazing insight! we need an email address police to get rid of those
folk who have un-american email addresses.
randy
Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - On the Internet ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - On the Internet ?
Note for IPv6 archeologists...Mobile
Tidbits the NANOG Community
...
with respect to jumping from 32-bits to 64-bits many UNIX-to-UNIX users
have noted... ONE more bit (33) may be enough to distinguish Legacy
from New. The bit would go on the Left as opposed to Right which would
double
the existing mess.
...
Linux has the added bit
plonk
As the NANOG Community Moves to IPv6...
...
it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
...
without that, Carriers may [assume] they are no longer in use and
start using them for their expansion
...
the DNS records of course flag your move to IPv6
On 04/04/2010, at 7:54 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
As the NANOG Community Moves to IPv6...
...
it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
MMC
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very useful?
He's still got to reach the heights of IPv9
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
In article 207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates
* Michael Dillon
Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
license fee for IPv6 support?
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive advanced licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Our IPv6
In article 201004041249.o34cnuut078...@aurora.sol.net, Joe Greco
jgr...@ns.sol.net writes
Some sources claim the PET is later, but I remember it because I was
doing a project on PCs in Schools in the spring of 1977, using an
8-bit PC that I had built myself on a patchboard. And the PET arrived
On 04/03/2010 07:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How
Sounds like this guy could benefit from some carpeting and a few Roombas in his
Data Center ;)
Stefan Fouant
--Original Message--
From: Randy Bush
To: IPv3.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Tidbits the NANOG Community
Sent: Apr 4, 2010 6:23 AM
plonk
Sent from my Verizon Wireless
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
I must have dozed off--what is the connection between the Subject: and
the recent traffic under it.
The Internet (Note
On 4/4/2010 00:29, Randy Bush wrote:
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD
funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
articles, and anecdotes.
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
On 04/04/2010, at 7:54 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
As the NANOG Community Moves to IPv6...
...
it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
Please don't feed the
Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
license fee for IPv6 support?
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive advanced licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Our IPv6 topology
In article 4bb897a7.60...@consolejunkie.net, Leen Besselink
l...@consolejunkie.net writes
(I saw a number in the last 2-3 days that 2-3% of spam is now being delivered
via SMTP-over-IPv6). You may not need that gear as much as you thought...
This maybe ?:
On 4/4/2010 05:00, IPv3.com wrote:
Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - On the Internet ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - On the Internet ?
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it
is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the world?
All those low cost switches and wifi adapters DO use unique mac
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/4/2010 05:00, IPv3.com wrote:
Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - On the Internet ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - On
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to
I've seen duplicate addresses in the wild in the past, I assume there
is some amount of reuse, even though they are suppose to be unique.
-jim
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM, A.B. Jr. skan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD
funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
articles, and anecdotes. (Access here meaning physical access to a
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.; unless
shown otherwise, these are likely to be errors, not accidental collisions.
-Dave
On Apr 4, 2010, at 10:57 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
I've seen
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.; unless
shown otherwise, these are likely to be errors, not accidental
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com wrote:
Sun, for one, used to assign the same MAC address to every NIC in the
same box.
Technically, they assigned a MAC to the NIC and a MAC to the box.
Unless you configured it otherwise, all NICs in the box defaulted to
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses
like mine original
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
I've seen duplicate addresses in the wild in the past, I assume there
is some amount of reuse, even though they are suppose to be unique.
5 percent of the mac addresses in a ADSL population used the same MAC
address. Turned out to be some D-link device
http://www.lmdata.es/uets.htm
Original Message
Subject:what about 48 bits?
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:53:54 -0300
From: A.B. Jr. skan...@gmail.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.;
In message 20100404111728.2b5c9...@milhouse.peachfamily.net, John Peach
writes:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number
On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:46 17AM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a
Owen DeLong wrote:
It was based on 56kbit lines and the primary applications were
email, ftp, and telnet.
(you have to have the right Yorkshire accent and Monty Python background
for this...)
56kbit lines? If only we were so lucky...
We had 9600 V.29 synchronous modems!
Synchronous? My
On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD
On 4/4/2010 09:56, John Sage wrote:
The degree to which people subscribed to this list, apparently having
nothing better to do, will respond to a blatant troll is breathtaking.
Mama taught me to be polite and forgiving, it takes me a while to give
up on a persistent idiot--I want so badly to
On 4/4/10 6:44 AM, Leen Besselink l...@consolejunkie.net wrote:
Out of the total number of emails received, 14% were received over
IPv6, the rest over IPv4.
It should be clear that 14% received here is email to RIPE NCC servers. I
don't think we have 14% of SMTP traffic out there coming via
On 4/4/2010 10:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:53:54AM -0300, A.B. Jr. wrote:
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be.
Or it is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout
the world? All
On 4/4/2010 6:46 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
Sounds like this guy could benefit from some carpeting and a few Roombas in his
Data Center ;)
trolls rarely benefit from anything but being ignored.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
If every significant router on the market supported IPv6 five years ago,We
need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building
UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about vendors and
made things work
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
fuzzy on the details ...
--lyndon
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy
on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I
confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
I'm pretty sure it was adding 'uucp' in the commands list that enabled
Tore Anderson tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com wrote:
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive advanced licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Really? My level of respect for Juniper has just dropped a few
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is
i don't recall .uucp making it into the actual DNS, but i remember our mail
system used it as a trigger to do a uucp-maps lookup.
It was for a brief period of time as a pseudo-domain and placeholder
for MX RRs for machines participating in the UUCP project.
Mary Ann Horton (formerly Mark
But when I think of network I think of things like the PSTN, ABC,
Mutual, California's DOJ torn-tape TTY, and FIDO where the message to be
delivered was the focus and the internal works were pretty much
uninteresting to the user.
Read Notable Computer Networks, John Quarterman and Josiah
That the UUCP world developed links to The Internet (and FIDONet, and
BITNET and ) goes without saying. But landing you Piper Cherokee at
LAX doesn't make you part of the Commercial Airline Industry.
That's how for some time the distinction between internet and
Internet was born.
Jorge
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the
intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25
years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote
commands, but I confess that my memory is
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:53:54AM -0300, A.B. Jr. wrote:
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be.
Or it is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused
Zaid
P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
I would have thought opposite.
People who have been on this list longer would probably remember when I
was playing in this sandbox.
The real wisdom about networks is never try to change everything and
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the year
2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in the foreseeable future.
And this is what happens
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org wrote:
feature blocking seems to negate that. I mean, how could their
disabled-until-you-pay blocking of premium features be effective if a
user can get to the underlying Unix OS, shell, file system, processes,
Probably
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - On the Internet ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Seems like ipvsomething.com is just another Internet entrepreneur who earns
money from driving traffic to nonsense sites that host Google ads.
He seems to think that the NANOG list is a
This is an example of the law that the number of replys is directly
propotional to the cluelessness of the post?
Bruce
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis j...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the
intermediate site(s) allowed
On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch,
On 4/4/10 2:04 PM, Vadim Antonov a...@kotovnik.com wrote:
Zaid
P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
I would have thought opposite.
It is sometimes helpful to draw lessons from nature and other systems :)
People who have been on this list
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:48:38 -0700
Jim Burwell j...@jsbc.cc wrote:
On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some
On 4/4/2010 12:18, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
fuzzy on
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM, A.B. Jr. skan...@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it
is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the world?
All
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive advanced licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
yep
maybe try is-is
randy
The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6
has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
and, after all, if ipv6 takes off, we plan to throw away
the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to
worry about.
you forgot, and thus sigs were born. they once served a purpose other
than ego
randy
fwiw, i still run uucp for a very few remaining odd sites.
randy
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:55 07PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to
worry about.
you forgot, and thus sigs were born. they once served a purpose other
than ego
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:01:30 EDT, Steven Bellovin said:
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node.
I remember trying to debug a very messy mail routing problem some 25 years ago,
which we finally traced back to the fact that pathalias was too smart by half,
and
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due
to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up
Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU
(Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
You could just about see the wide-eyed disbelief by some as they saw
for example alt.politics, you people just
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up
Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU
(Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
I bet that there many histories, perhaps those that didn't have access
to modern communications and vast
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:17:28 -0400
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them,
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:05:50 -0700
Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the year
2100[3]; EUI-64s are not
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? [...]
Actually the minimum 64 byte packet size could probably go too, as that
was only there for
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:57:41 GMT
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? [...]
On 4/4/2010 17:20, Barry Shein wrote:
I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet
Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was
one of the most powerful forces for change in
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet
and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like the net will
change the world, because for the first time people from all over the
globe were communicating fairly openly and inexpensively, and somehow
the internet and
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaegglijoe...@bogus.com wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying
around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's
fib being a
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jim Burwell wrote:
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet
and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like the net will
change the world, because for the first time people from all over the
globe were communicating fairly openly and
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaegglijoe...@bogus.com wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
laying around could forward v6
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link they're wasting 100+ Mbps. 100GE /
1TE starts to make
On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than IPv4.
Zing, and there you have it! The hourglass is
On 4/4/2010 19:16, Mark Smith wrote:
-snip-
Actually the IEEE have never called it Ethernet, it's all been IEEE
802.3 / XXX{BASE|BROAD}-BLAH.
Ethernet, assuming version 1 and 2, strictly means thick coax, vampire
taps and AUI connectors running at (half-duplex) 10Mbps. I saw some of
it once.
On 4/4/2010 09:02, Larry Sheldon wrote:
This attribution line is wrong--I meant to leave only the two line below
it--for my purposes it did matter who said it.
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
The line above should have been edited out leaving only these two.
What if TCP is removed ? and
The N connectors were easier to deal with than the vampire taps. To add
a node, you just spliced a new xceiver box onto the line where you
needed it by screwing a new length of cable into the new + existng
xceivers, then connecting the AUI drop cable from the box to the node.
I've to say it,
On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:29 47PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
The N connectors were easier to deal with than the vampire taps. To add
a node, you just spliced a new xceiver box onto the line where you
needed it by screwing a new length of cable into the new + existng
xceivers, then connecting the AUI
And then there was the time an electrician accidentally cut the coax and
decided to splice it with black electrical tape...
He, he, we had all sorts of issues, ethernet was not a very well known
technology yet. We had a radio antenna on the roof and when the guys
doing the install saw a coax
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from 2008
about the interop show: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27583
The show could setup an
On 4/4/2010 7:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link
2010/4/4 Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the
year
2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in the
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
